1. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING September 15, 2009

2. Board of County Commissioners Project :Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) PD/LUP - Substantial Change Applicant: Russell Maynard District #:1 Request: To consider a substantial change to the approved Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) Planned Development/Land Use Plan (PD/LUP) to allow a vertiport as a permitted use on Lot 11. Each helicopter shall be limited to five (5) passengers, the vertiport shall operate only during daylight hours, and turbine engines shall be allowed. Project :Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) PD/LUP - Substantial Change Applicant: Russell Maynard District #:1 Request: To consider a substantial change to the approved Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) Planned Development/Land Use Plan (PD/LUP) to allow a vertiport as a permitted use on Lot 11. Each helicopter shall be limited to five (5) passengers, the vertiport shall operate only during daylight hours, and turbine engines shall be allowed.

3. Board of County Commissioners Zoning Map

4. Board of County Commissioners Future Land Use Map Future Land Use Map

5. Board of County Commissioners Tinwood and Waterford Commons Existing and Proposed Heliport and Vertiport Tinwood and Waterford Commons Existing and Proposed Heliport and Vertiport

6. Board of County Commissioners Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) Land Use Plan Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) Land Use Plan

7. Board of County Commissioners Action Requested  Find the request consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the Substantial Change to the approved Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) PD/LUP dated “Received July 16, 2009,” subject to the five (5) conditions in the staff report.

8. Board of County Commissioners 1. Development shall conform to the Tinwood (fka Waterford Commons) PD Land Use Plan dated “Received July 16, 2009,” and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinances and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. Accordingly, the PD may be developed in accordance with the uses, densities and intensities described in such Land Use Plan, subject to those uses, densities and intensities conforming with the restrictions and requirements found in the conditions of approval and complying with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinance and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. If the development is unable to achieve or obtain desired uses, densities or intensities, the County is not under any obligation to grant any waivers or modifications to enable the developer to achieve or obtain those desired uses, densities or intensities. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a condition of approval of this zoning and the land use plan dated "Received July 16, 2009," the condition of approval shall control to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency. DRC Recommendations

9. Board of County Commissioners 2. This project shall comply with, adhere to, and not deviate from or otherwise conflict with any verbal or written promise or representation made by the applicant (or authorized agent) to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing where this development was approved, where such promise or representation, whether oral or written, was relied upon by the Board in approving the development, could have reasonably been expected to have been relied upon by the Board in approving the development, or could have reasonably induced or otherwise influenced the Board to approve the development. For purposes of this condition, a “promise” or “representation” shall be deemed to have been made to the Board by the applicant (or authorized agent) if it was expressly made to the Board at a public hearing where the development was considered or approved. DRC Recommendations Cont’d.

10. Board of County Commissioners 3. All previous applicable Conditions of Approval dated June 30, 1998, shall apply: a. Billboards and pole signs shall be prohibited. b. This project shall enter into the Convention Center Hotel Agreement. c. The following International Drive Strategic Plan Conditions shall apply:  Permitted and prohibited uses shall be those specified in Policies 1.1.3 and 1.1.6 of the International Drive Activity Center Plan.  If the housing linkage program is in place prior to development plan approval, the development of non-residential development shall be conditioned upon the development of residential units within the area designated activity center residential on the future land use map. DRC Recommendations Cont’d.

11. Board of County Commissioners  The development guidelines of the International Drive activity center shall apply to the subject property if they are established prior to development plan submittal.  The property owner shall be required to participate in a Property Owners’ Association upon its creation.  Stormwater management facilities shall be designed as an aesthetic feature except where determined by the County Engineer to be technically unfeasible.  Twenty (20’)-foot wide pedestrian/landscape/utility easement plus a 15-foot wide transit easement shall be provided along International Drive for a total of 35-feet (with the transit easement in front) shall be included.  The development plan shall provide for the interconnection of adjacent development either by cross access easement or public right-of-way. This shall include connection into and continuation of an area wide transportation plan for the International Drive Activity Center. DRC Recommendations Cont’d.

12. Board of County Commissioners  Electrical distribution lines shall be underground.  Participation in a shuttle service connecting area attractions, major transportation centers, and on-site development shall be provided. 4. The helicopter shall be limited to five passengers on the aircraft and piston- driven/turbine engine; to exceed that will trigger a substantial change and require another public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 5. The helipad / vertiport shall be used only during daylight hours. DRC Recommendations Cont’d.

13. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING

14. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING September 15, 2009

15. Board of County Commissioners District #: 1 Case #: RZ-08-06-037 Applicant: Daniel T. O’Keefe for Village F Master PD Request: A-1 (Citrus Rural District) and A-2 (Farmland Rural District) PD (Planned Development District) to Proposed Use:Mixed-use development in accordance with the approved Land Use Plan (LUP) Non-Residential…………240,000 sq. ft. Residential Dwellings……..3,463 units District #: 1 Case #: RZ-08-06-037 Applicant: Daniel T. O’Keefe for Village F Master PD Request: A-1 (Citrus Rural District) and A-2 (Farmland Rural District) PD (Planned Development District) to Proposed Use:Mixed-use development in accordance with the approved Land Use Plan (LUP) Non-Residential…………240,000 sq. ft. Residential Dwellings……..3,463 units

16. Board of County Commissioners RZ-08-06-037 Zoning Map RZ-08-06-037 Zoning Map

17. Board of County Commissioners RZ-08-06-037 Future Land Use Map RZ-08-06-037 Future Land Use Map

18. Board of County Commissioners Village F Master PD Land Use Plan

19. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendation  Make a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and Approve the PD zoning subject to the following conditions:

20. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval 1. Development shall conform to the Village F Master PD Land Use Plan dated “Received April 22, 2009,” and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinances and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. Accordingly, the PD may be developed in accordance with the uses, densities and intensities described in such Land Use Plan, subject to those uses, densities and intensities conforming with the restrictions and requirements found in the conditions of approval and complying with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinance and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. If the development is unable to achieve or obtain desired uses, densities or intensities, the County is not under any obligation to grant any waivers or modifications to enable the developer to achieve or obtain those desired uses, densities or intensities. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a condition of approval of this zoning and the land use plan dated "Received April 22, 2009," the condition of approval shall control to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.

21. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. 2. This project shall comply with, adhere to, and not deviate from or otherwise conflict with any verbal or written promise or representation made by the applicant (or authorized agent) to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing where this development was approved, where such promise or representation, whether oral or written, was relied upon by the Board in approving the development, could have reasonably been expected to have been relied upon by the Board in approving the development, or could have reasonably induced or otherwise influenced the Board to approve the development. For purposes of this condition, a “promise” or “representation” shall be deemed to have been made to the Board by the applicant (or authorized agent) if it was expressly made to the Board at a public hearing where the development was considered or approved. 3. All acreages regarding conservation areas and wetland buffers are considered approximate until finalized by a Conservation Area Determination (CAD) and a Conservation Area Impact (CAI) Permit. Approval of this plan does not authorize any direct or indirect conservation area impacts.

22. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. 4. Final configuration of the Parcel N-17 Elementary School / Park site shall be approved by both the Orange County Parks and Recreation Division and Orange County Public Schools. 5. There shall be a 20-foot fee simple access provided between the Parcel S- 17 Park site and the Parcel S-25 Elementary School site. 6. A waiver from Section 38-1386(a)(2) is granted to allow Parcel N-33 to have structures and uses to serve civic (excluding education / daycare / telecommunication towers & fields) and non-commercial recreational needs without having to obtain Special Exception Approval from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. 7. The Garden Home and Village Home districts shall contain a mix of single- family detached and single-family attached residences. The exact configuration of this mix shall be determined at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plan review.

23. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. 8. The Developer shall obtain water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service from Orange County Utilities. 9. A Master Utility Plan (MUP) for Village F shall be submitted to Orange County Utilities prior to approval of the first Preliminary Subdivision Plan/Development Plan. The MUP must be approved prior to Construction Plan approval. 10. The Developer shall be responsible for building master utilities transmission and collection infrastructure adequate to serve the project to accommodate the ultimate flows for the entire Village. Utilities infrastructure shall be built connecting to the existing County force main, water main, and/or reclaimed water main. 11. Prior to construction plan approval, all property owners within Village F, excluding public entities, shall be required to sign an agreement between the parties addressing their proportionate share of funds for the costs of the offsite and onsite master utilities sized to Village requirements.

24. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. 12. Unless the property is vested and/or exempt, the applicant shall be subject to school concurrency and required to go through the review process prior to platting. 13. A waiver from Section 38-1384(f)(1) is granted to allow each block face to contain one (1) district size in lieu of each block containing at least two (2) district lot sizes (excluding end units). This waiver shall apply only to block faces with five (5) or fewer lots. 14. The following Education Condition of Approval shall apply: a) The Developer shall comply with all provisions of Capacity Enhancement Agreements (CEA’s) numbered 06-011-01, 06-011-02, 06- 011-03, 06-011-05, 06-011-06-T2, 06-011-07, 06-011-08, 06-011-10, 06-011- 12, 06-011-14, 06-011-15, and 06-011-16 entered into with the Orange County School Board [and Orange County] in November 2006 and recorded in the official records of the Orange County Comptroller.

25. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. b) Upon the County’s receipt of written notice from Orange County Public Schools that the developer is in default or breach of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, the County shall immediately cease issuing building permits for any residential units in excess of the residential units allowed under the zoning existing prior to the approval of the PD zoning, as indicated in each of the CEA’s listed above. The County shall again begin issuing building permits upon Orange County Public Schools’ written notice to the County that the developer is no longer in breach or default of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement. The developer and its successor(s) and/or assign(s) under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, shall indemnify and hold the County harmless from any third party claims, suits, or actions arising as a result of the act of ceasing the County’s issuance of residential building permits.

26. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. c) The Developer, or its successor(s) an/or assign(s) under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, agrees that it shall not claim in any future litigation that the County’s enforcement of any of these conditions are illegal, improper, unconstitutional, or a violation of the developer’s rights. d) Orange County shall be held harmless by the developer and its successor(s) and/or assign(s) under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, in any dispute between the Developer and Orange County Public Schools over any interpretation or provision of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement. e) At the time of platting, documentation shall be provided from Orange County Public Schools that this project is in compliance with the Capacity Enhancement Agreement.

27. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. 15. The cross-section for Seidel Road is not approved with this plan. The final cross-section shall be designed to be pedestrian-oriented, with a maximum speed limit of thirty (30) miles per hour. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC).

28. Board of County Commissioners P&ZC Recommendation  Make a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the PD zoning, subject to fifteen (15) conditions.

29. Board of County Commissioners Action Requested  Find the request consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the Village F Master PD Land Use Plan dated “Received April 22, 2009,” subject to the fifteen (15) conditions as stated in the Planning and Zoning Recommendations of the staff report.

30. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING